The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Waller[edit]

Martin Waller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails General notability guidelines and likely self promotion. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources are provided to show why he's notable. I also share a concern the page's auther, Evewaller (talk · contribs), is related to the subject. -- Calidum 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a long standing journalist and diarist for one of the most respected newspapers in the UK and who appears in a whole bunch of news and book hits if you use the right search terms. I've added coverage from a couple to give the article a boost. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So he's been doing his job at a decent company for a long time. As a journalist, his name will appear in print against his work. But have there been multiple, authoritative articles written about him? FunkyCanute (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, quite a few, such as the four I added the other day. I mean, the New Statesman source has his name in the title! Calling The Times, one of the most longest established British newspapers (despite Rupert Murdoch trying desparately to bugger things up) "a decent company" shows alarming naivety. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.